The President has instituted a plan to ensure that American defense systems are able to protect themselves against EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse ) attacks.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On March 26, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order (E.O.) establishing the first ever comprehensive whole-of-government policy to build resilience and protect against electromagnetic pulses, or EMPs – temporary electromagnetic signals that can disrupt, degrade, and damage technology and critical infrastructure systems across large areas.

This may bode well for the nation, because the alternative defence is to "... use fiberoptic cable which would be unaffected by EMP".But for the rest of us, who depend upon copper cables to power our homes and our automobiles, the consequences may well mean that we have no access to convenient transportation (cars, trains, airplanes) and communication over systems which are primarily dependent on copper cables ... which are VERY vulnerable. National security systems may survive, but the systems which we use in our personal lives may not.You may not be able to communicate by any electromagnetic means (internet, telephone, etc.) which transmit signals via copper wires. You can't drive your car, because the circuits are burned out. Some say that if the circuit is not in use when the EMP occurs, the system may survive. Some say that is an oversimplification of the effects of an EMP.I don't claim to be an authority on EMP ... its cause nor its effects ... but this is a possibility which we should be aware of. Not that there is anything we can do about it. (Personally, I'm thinking about buying a wood-stove and a dog-sled; which would be helpful until the refrigerator stops working. I could always eat the dogs, cooked over the wood stove.)No, I'm not serious about that. There is absolutely nothing which the private citizen could do to ameliorate the effects of EMP over much of America. Any country which depends on electricity to power their homes above a barely subsistence level is vulnerable. The cost of lives, and the attempt to re-channel national resources to support a newly defined primitive life-style is beyond imagination.In the words of some long-dead pundant from decades past: "there's no use worrying, nothing's going to work out all right".It gives me a queasy feeling to realize that everything which supports our lives depends on the competence of politicians who are elected by the majority of people who are accustomed to living on the Governmental Dole.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

All that follows may not be applicable in your state; you would be well-advised to consult a lawyer who is familiar with the laws of your state, and familiarize yourself with the applicable laws in your state. I am not a lawyer, and what I have to say here may not be applicable in your state.

In a situation where the police want to search your property, and they have not acquired a warrant to do so ... you may not have a legal obligation to allow them to search your property.

This is what may be known as an Illegal Entry; or it may be a "No-Knock Warrant". in the case where Police are permitted by local laws to enter your property for the purpose of executing a search with or without your permission. (Confusing? YES!)

Evidence discovered via a warrantless search, MAY BE defensible in court.
If the searchers discover something which they subsequently present in a court of law as "evidence", it might legally be held against you, regardless of the circumstances .. if you gave permission to allow them the search.

Any arrest based on a warrantless (or otherwise not-legal) search may be defensible. You may not be able to defend yourself in court against an illegal search, if you permit it at the time. Demonstrating that the search was not grounded by a warrant may not be sufficient defense to require the court to ignore the evidence discovered there-in. If you have uttered words which might be considered as "consenting" to the search, any evidence found during the search may be used against you.I'm not a member of the bar, so you should seek legal counsel if you find yourself in this kind of quandary; but I encourage you to defend yourself against any charges based upon "questionable evidence" discovered during a search which is not specifically named in a legal warrant which purports to justify a search of your home and/or property.

Rule #1: Admit NOTHING. It's better to remain silent, and be considered a fool, than to speak and prove to be a fool.

Rule #2: Never agree to a warrantless search. The first words out of your mouth should be "Show Me Your Warrant". If the would-be searchers cannot present a warrant, the search is not legal. Evidence found in an illegal search may not be used in evidence against you in court ... but don't count on it. Note carefully the conditions and terms of the warrant; it should include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which they are searching. If they are looking for guns, and happen to notice a sword in a closet ... the sword may not be a significant finding, or anything found in the closet may not be subject to confiscation. But if they are looking for "weapons", it may be taken in evidence.

Rule #3: The next words you speak (and the last words) should be: "I need to have my lawyer present before I answer any questions or consent to a search".Rule #4: Heed Your Lawyer! Nobody else: and certainly do not heed the advice of anyone who has the power to arrest you.

There are defenses: in some states, if you do not consent to a search of your privately owned property, under certain circumstances evidence found may not be admissible in a court of law. Again, you will probably need to present the search warrant (if one is offered) to you attorney to ensure that your rights have not been violated by a too-exuberant exercise of search which are not permitted under the terms of the search warrant.

The terms of a search warrantshould include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which the searchers expect to find. Which is not to say that if the searchers are looking for machine guns and the find illicit drugs, they must overlook the drugs, but that confuses the mission and may sometimes obviate their findings. (If the police are looking for machine guns and find an ounce of drugs in a pill-box ... the machine guns could not be expected to be found in a pill-box, and so the finding of a pill-box of drugs may not be the result of a "legal search". But don't count on it!)

This commentary is much too short to completely address the issues involved in Constitutional law, and it is not intended to be definitive. If you have issues which are not addressed here, you are invited to raise them with the expectation that they MAY be discussed in subsequent issues.

Sunday, April 07, 2019

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS: DO NOT RESIST, COOPERATE, sort it out in the courts. It is the law. Yes, the very same legal system who ordered the firearms confiscation. If not resisting and cooperating is in your opinion “dropping to your knees, and handing them over” that would be your opinion.

I'm not sure what the law is ... which is one of the reasons why this "law enforcement" thingie is so confusing .. is that police need to be specific about what they are searching for .. and they need to have a warrant (a legal document) specifying they are searching for ...